Estate of Becker

California Court of Appeal Feb 21, 1969 No. Civ. No. 32679Published

Before: Fleming

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the testatrix's holographic will expressed an intent to dispose of her entire estate in trust, and that the specific references to bank accounts and stocks were words of enlargement rather than limitation. Consequently, the $25,000 settlement proceeds passed under the will into the testamentary trust rather than by intestacy.

Issues

Whether the testatrix's will disposed of her entire property or only the specific assets mentioned.
Whether the language describing specific assets constituted words of limitation or words of enlargement.
Whether the remainder of the trust should be distributed to the Braille Institute for charitable purposes.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude that Miss Becker intended by the will to dispose of all income from her entire property, and that her intent was sufficiently expressed to achieve its purpose.”

“We construe the words which follow the expression "all income" as words of enlargement which do not restrict or limit the scope of the bequest, "all income."”

“We conclude that the legacy in the present case was a general legacy of the testatrix' entire property in trust for the testatrix' sister during her lifetime, with remainder to Braille Institute.”

270 Cal.App.2d 31 (1969) Estate of C. MARIE BECKER, Deceased. NELLE M. PRATT et al., Petitioners and Respondents,

THOMAS C. LYNCH, as Attorney General, etc., Objector and Appellant; EMILY BARBARA BECKER, Claimant and Respondent.

Civ. No. 32679. California Court of Appeals. Second Dist., Div. Two.

Feb. 21, 1969. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, and Carl Boronkay, Deputy Attorney General, for Objector and Appellant.

Poindexter & Barger, Henry J. Merdink and Alfred B. Doutre for Petitioners and Respondents.

Smith & Davis and Frank R. Davis for Claimant and Respondent.

FLEMING, J.

The Attorney General, as protector of charitable trusts, appeals a judgment determining that $25,000 in the estate of C. Marie Becker passed by intestacy to Emily B. Becker, the testatrix' next of kin, and not to a trust created by the will. The principal issue is whether the testatrix' will disposed of all her property or only part of it.

At the age of 82 Miss Becker wrote the following holographic will:

"Last Will of C. Marie Becker"

"Aug 2, 1960"

"C. Marie Becker"

"1351 N. Orange Drive"

"Hollywood, Calif."

"I do hereby make this statement that I am of sound mind and judgment and make my last will and testament as follows: All income derived from my several bank accounts, also all income derived from all my stocks to be paid to my sister Emily B. Becker as long as she lives, and after her death all above incomes to be paid to Braille Institute of America, Inc., 741 North Vermont Ave., Hollywood, California, and hereby appoint upon my death Security First Nat. Bank, 6777 Hollywood Blvd., Hollywood Calif. to act as Executor and Trustee of all above properties without bond."

"C. Marie Becker,"

"1351 N. Orange Dr., Hollywood, Calif."

There was no evidence that at the time Miss Becker wrote her will she had any substantial property other than savings accounts and stocks. In January 1961 she purchased a single-premium nonrefundable annuity for $10,000. In February 1961 she purchased a second annuity for $10,000, and in April

Estate of Becker

AI Brief

FLEMING, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief